The Newport Group, Inc. and its affiliates will be acquiring the Greensboro, North Carolina, operations of Clark Consulting, LLC, and its broker-dealer Clark Securities, Inc.
This will make Newport the largest administrator of bank-owned life insurance (BOLI) and corporate-owned life insurance (COLI) in the nation, according to the announcement. BOLI and COLI are used to recover the costs of supplemental employee health and nonqualified retirement plans.
“We are excited about the opportunity to leverage our combined capabilities and best practices, which will provide our clients with deeper resources and service offerings,” says Newport President Peter Cahall. “Clark Consulting has been an innovative leader in BOLI and COLI service for decades, and we look forward to welcoming their Greensboro team to Newport.”
In combination with the Clark business, Newport’s COLI/BOLI client assets will rise to more than $65 billion. Newport will maintain its current office in Greensboro, while exploring opportunities to leverage the combined COLI and BOLI operations. Following the closing of the transaction, the Clark business will continue to be serviced by the same team.
“This acquisition is part of our broader strategy to position Newport and our affiliate Verisight as leading providers in retirement, insurance, and consulting services,” Newport Chief Executive Officer Greg Tschider says. “Not only does this firmly establish Newport as the leader in the BOLI marketplace, it better positions our organization for continued growth across all of our business lines.”
The transaction is expected to be completed in 30 to 60 days, subject to customary regulatory approvals.
By using this site you agree to our network wide Privacy Policy.
Plan sponsors should ask for indemnification clauses when
they enter into contracts with service providers and retirement plan advisers,
experts say.
Indemnification clauses are promises by the service
providers, stipulating that if they do something wrong which causes harm to the
plan or causes a third party to sue the sponsor, the service provider will
cover their legal costs, explains Fred Reish, chair of the Financial Services
ERISA practice at Drinker, Biddle & Reath in San Francisco.
However, while it is important for plan sponsors to realize
that indemnification clauses are helpful protections, they are not “exculpatory
provisions” that eliminate sponsors’ fiduciary liabilities, Reish says.
Sponsors still need to take steps to meet their fiduciary responsibilities when
entering into a contract with a service provider, he says. “You don’t offload
your fiduciary responsibilities with an indemnification clause,” Reish says.
Sponsors should also be aware that when asking a service
provider for an indemnification clause, the provider might say that as a
general policy, they don’t offer such clauses—or they might ask the plan
sponsor to reciprocate and indemnify them in return, Reish says. Sponsors will
then need to determine if they are comfortable indemnifying their providers or
working with a provider that doesn’t offer indemnification, he says.
NEXT: Negotiating
indemnification clauses
Sponsors inevitably will need an Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) attorney’s help in negotiating indemnification clauses
because their terms can vary widely, Reish says. “Does it just cover the
settlement amount of a lawsuit or attorney fees and the cost of hiring experts,
or are the terms broader whereby the indemnification agreement covers any
reasonable amount that needs to be paid in relation to a lawsuit?” Reish notes.
“Does the indemnification clause cover any kind of mistake that is made, or is
it limited to certain kinds of mistakes?”
It is vital for a plan sponsor to ensure the indemnification
clause covers not just the plan sponsor, but also related persons, says Kishka
McClain, a partner with Venable LLP in Washington. “That includes the company,
its officers, directors, employees, agents, stockholders and affiliates,”
McClain says.
It is also essential for sponsors to seek out
indemnification clauses for actions where the service provider or a third-party
subcontractor has discretionary authority and the sponsor is not in control,
says Jason Roberts, a partner with Retirement Law Group in Los Angeles. “An
example would be where the service provider subcontracts service to a custodian
or a trust company,” Roberts says. “Because the plan sponsor isn’t conducting
due diligence on those third parties, they might want to seek indemnification
for any misconduct by those third parties. Another very common issue is data
throughputs. After the recordkeeper receives data from payroll, the sponsor no
longer has control over the information and they should expect to be
indemnified for the recordkeeper’s handling of this information.”
Privacy is another common issue that comes up in
indemnification clauses for retirement plans, Roberts says. “Recordkeepers
handle a lot of sensitive and personal information on participants. Plan
sponsors should be indemnified against a breach or intentional dissemination of
that information,” he says.
The scope of the indemnification is also important. When
David Kaleda, a principal in the fiduciary responsibility practice group at
Groom Law Group in Washington, D.C., goes over indemnification clauses in
service provider contracts for his plan sponsor clients, he makes sure that the
terms are broad enough to provide ample coverage. For example, Kaleda doesn’t
want the clause to only apply to “gross negligence but to regular negligence,
and not just to willful misconduct but to a material breach of the service
agreement or applicable loss.”
Next: True fiduciary
protection
Aside from seeking out indemnification clauses, plan
sponsors have a fiduciary responsibility to thoroughly vet service providers
before entering into a contract with them, says Babu Sivadasan, group president
of Envestnet | Retirement Solutions in San Francisco. “Ask questions about
their experience and their prudent fiduciary process,” Sivadasan says. “Ask
about the underlying technology supporting the fiduciary processes. Make sure
they are sound. If it’s a retirement plan adviser offering 3(38) or 3(21)
fiduciary services, find out if they are offering those services on their own
or if they are relying on a third-party administrator like Envestnet |
Retirement Services. Look at the skillset of all of the players.”
Kaleda agrees that thoroughly vetting service providers is
key. “Sponsors need to have done thorough due diligence in selecting the
service provider to ensure that they are competent and, importantly, their fees
are reasonable,” he says. Sponsors also have a fiduciary responsibility to
monitor their service providers to ensure they are delivering on the services delineated
in their contracts.
Both Reish and Sivadasan also believe it is a smart move for
plan sponsors to completely offload the investment selection and monitoring
process by hiring a 3(38) fiduciary as opposed to a 3(21) fiduciary who will
make suggestions but leave the decision up to the sponsor. “Plan sponsors
seeking fiduciary protection should consider turning a retirement plan adviser
who can serve as a 3(38) fiduciary whereby they pick their investments and
prudently monitor them,” Reish says. “That is the highest degree of protection
you can get.”
In addition, “having fiduciary breach insurance is a great
backstop because even if you are wrongfully sued, it can cost you hundreds of
thousands of dollars to get out of a case,” he adds. In line with this, it is
also smart for plan sponsors to make sure that their recordkeeper and
third-party administrator either also carry fiduciary breach insurance or are
large enough to pay a legal expense, Reish says.
Finally, sponsors might consider asking an ERISA attorney to
review their service provider contracts to ensure the terms are favorable for
the them and that they are indemnified wherever possible. By reviewing the
entire service provider contract along with the indemnification clauses, an
attorney can detect “whether the provider has added language to the contract
that would shift risk,” McClain says. “For example, if the service provider has
included a standard of care by which it will render its obligations, and they
tie the indemnification clause to the standard of care, that can dilute your indemnification
protection.”
Reish adds: “I am constantly amazed that sponsors will sign
20- to 30-page complicated contract without reading them or having their
attorneys read review them.” Plan
sponsors can really benefit from an ERISA attorney’s help in negotiating and
reviewing service provider contracts—particularly with indemnification clauses
because few plan sponsors are aware such clauses exist, Reish says. “This is
not on their radar,” he says.